38 comments:

The floodgates are open? This may be true if there had been no instances of polygamy, or people advocating for polygamy, prior to the legalization of SSM.

If a valid case cannot be made against polygamy, then it should be allowed. But SSM has been legal in Canada for over ten years and polygamy is still illegal. Why do you think that things will be different in the US?

What's wrong with someone filing a request for a polygamous marriage? This is America and everyone has the right to ask. If they can make their case more power to them but merely filing a request is a long way form demonstrating compelling reasons why laws against polygamy should be overturned.

Polygamy was originally outlawed is the U.S. due to cases of Mormon elders pressuring young and naive women into such marriages. There also exists no legal structure to handle marriage contracts with more than 2 parties. Things like inheritance, tax liability, power of attorney, and child custody in the case of divorce would all need to be created from scratch for multiple-partner marriages. That's a huge difference from legalizing same sex marriage where all that had to change was the gender eligibility of the two parties.

The "slippery slope" argument is a favorite of the homophobic bigots. In reality we can look at places like Denmark which has had same-sex marriage for over 25 years and zero instances of people lobbying for polygamy or incestual marriages. Looks like that slope isn't slippery at all.

I doubt if polygamy will be legalized for the same reasons detailed by Ghostrider. But with polygamy we also have a long history. In most cases (but not all) it is a man with multiple wives, where the women are definitely subordinate to the man. If you want to classify the desire to eliminate the abuse of women as "politically correct", that is your choice, but I don't think that you will get much support.

And incestuous relationships have a valid biological reason for not being allowed.

Right now what will happen is the marriage request will be denied due to the existing laws against siblings getting married. The law doesn't make special exceptions because the dangers of genetic inbreeding are not present (i.e. brother and sister where sister is infertile). You also have the same legal mess of inheritance, power-of-attorney, tax laws, etc. that you do in polygamy cases.

Of course this is a free country and any sibling pair is free to petition the courts to have the laws changed. Feel free to do so if you're that hot for your brother. I personally have never heard of anyone ever asking for such a thing.

I think the next logical legal action will be by unmarried hetero domestic partners. Companies like Verizon and Disney have afforded special privileges for benefits to SS domestic partners which were denied to traditional non-married folks "shaking up". The excuse was that SS partners were denied access to a legal marriage so they needed the special consideration.

Now that the barrier to marriage has been removed so has the excuse. Either these companies will have to revoke these privileges or offer them to any domestic partnership. Perhaps if polygamy fails in court Disney will offer benefits to multiple spouses...

"The social fallout hasn't yet been measured but this was a bad idea."

What social fallout are you talking about. Are you suggesting that extending health care benefits to common-law heterosexuals is a bad thing? This has been the norm in Canada for as long as I have been working and I haven't seen any problems associated with it.

Your comment implies a predisposition on your part to make ridiculous assumptions.

There's a different paradigm here. This ruling will likely be used to impose a normalization of SSM. Public schools are already adopting curriculum designed to do just that, normalize it for the coming generations.

Is this bad? As a Christian I believe it is. Not because I worry about homosexuality, but because it's an imposition of a moral belief by government. Opposition to this new "authorized" morality will be positioned as bigoted. Churches and religious organizations that refuse to provide services related to SSM are at risk of legal action. Just the financial weight of this is will intimidate most.

So my concern isn't for benefits or even gay rights, it's about the inevitable battle over what this ruling means. It will pit one group against the other with no room for middle ground. It will prove highly divisive at a time when we are already sharply divided over such issues. Thus, there will be social fallout with little likelihood of any winners.

"Is this bad? As a Christian I believe it is. Not because I worry about homosexuality, but because it's an imposition of a moral belief by government."

What moral belief are we talking about? The moral belief that people deserve respect and dignity? Yes, I can see why you would be afraid that government might require this of its citizens.

"Opposition to this new "authorized" morality will be positioned as bigoted."

Not affording respect and dignity to others is bigotry. If the shoe fits...

"Churches and religious organizations that refuse to provide services related to SSM are at risk of legal action."

No, churches are exempt. If you own a business that provides services to the public, it is against the law to deny these services based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. These are not new laws.

"Just the financial weight of this is will intimidate most."

Good. That is what fines are supposed to do.

"It will pit one group against the other with no room for middle ground."

What middle ground are you talking about? The middle ground that SSM should not be legalized? That ship has already sailed. Get over it.

"It will prove highly divisive at a time when we are already sharply divided over such issues."

So your solution would be to not make decisions on divisive issues? Thankfully the government didn't take that stance over slavery, civil rights, etc.

"Your anecdotal experience isn't even applicable."

This is not anecdotal. You claimed that there would be serious fallout over the legalization of SSM. I used the Canadian example where it has been legal for over ten years and there has been no serious fallout.

"The "slippery slope" argument is a favorite of the homophobic bigots. In reality we can look at places like Denmark which has had same-sex marriage for over 25 years and zero instances of people lobbying for polygamy or incestual marriages. Looks like that slope isn't slippery at all."

Ironically, that comment reveals the bigotry of the one who offered it, because it implicitly places decent brothers who want to marry their brothers, and decent sisters who want to marry their sisters, in a negative way.

Inherent to the "slippery-slope" argument is the notion that if we allow W, then X, Y, and possibly Z will follow, and X, Y, and Z are thought to be negative evolutionary results. No one thinks that phrases such as "Everything went downhill from there" means that everything got better and better from there. Yet what reason can a non-Christian offer against allowing a woman to marry her sister whom she loves dearly, or a man from marrying his brother whom he loves dearly? Too "icky" for you? Why?

I should probably point out -- to avoid being misconstrued -- that I don't personally endorse incestuous relationships. As most probably figured out, I was trying to make a rhetorical point.

To call those who favor traditional marriage "homophobic bigots" is at bottom itself a bigoted comment, and should therefore be avoided. Just because some people see things differently than you do doesn't make them bigots. Most Christians who support traditional marriage do so because they believe that this is what God expects of them. Whether they're right or wrong, I trust that most of them are sincere.

Of course arguing against same sex couples' right to legally marry under secular law is bigotry. If your objection affected only you personally you might have a case i .e. if you don't like same sex marriages then don't have one. Pushing your religious views to deny equal marriage rights to others just because you don't like the idea is the textbook definition of bigotry.

"Of course arguing against same sex couples' right to legally marry under secular law is bigotry."

I didn't say anything about arguing against anyone's "right" to do anything, and, as far as I can recall, I've never argued that homosexuals shouldn't have that legal "right". In fact, I would argue that the common Christian practice of trying to mold the world in Christ's image is a misapplication of the Christian message, which has to do with our imaging Christ, not our forcing others to image Christ.

Most people use the term "traditional marriage" as if it had some deep meaning. But what "traditional marriage" are they talking about? The one where the woman was expected to obey the man? Or the one where the man was allowed to physically discipline the woman? Or the one where the woman had to walk behind the husband? Or the one where the woman was not allowed outside unless accompanied by the husband or a male relative?

"Most people use the term "traditional marriage" as if it had some deep meaning. But what "traditional marriage" are they talking about? The one where the woman was expected to obey the man? Or the one where the man was allowed to physically discipline the woman? Or the one where the woman had to walk behind the husband? Or the one where the woman was not allowed outside unless accompanied by the husband or a male relative?"

No, the one where a woman and a man enter into a sacred contract and agree to spend the rest of their lives together in sacred union.

BTW, you didn't answer my question. What if a woman wants to marry her sister, or a man wants to marry his brother? What if a sterile man wants to marry his sister? What biological factors preclude us from allowing such commitments?

"BTW, you didn't answer my question. What if a woman wants to marry her sister, or a man wants to marry his brother? What if a sterile man wants to marry his sister? What biological factors preclude us from allowing such commitments?

None. I say, go for it. Is it hurting anything other than your sensibilities? It is not my cup of tea, but who cares.

Do you favor changing the laws to allow incestuous marriages? On what secular basis would you support the continued denial of such "rights" to the minority group who would like to enter into such secular marriages?

"The few (if any) people in the world who want to marry their sibling aren't any sort of recognized "minority group".

Yet the fact that a few people would like to marry a "forbidden" relative makes them a "minority group" by definition, whether you choose to recognize that or not.

"I already said to go ahead and make your case for incest but apparently you don't have one."

I never said that I wanted to make such a case. I'm just trying to see if you have any good secular reasons for NOT making such a case.

"I know homophobic bigots like to project their bigotry onto others but you need to find a less ridiculous example to push."

Not projecting onto others, but helping you reveal what's already there, if one accepts your definitions. I reject your definitions, and don't believe that those who favor traditional marriage are "bigots".

Yet the fact that a few people would like to marry a "forbidden" relative makes them a "minority group" by definition, whether you choose to recognize that or not.

By that idiotic logic bank robbers and NASCAR drivers should be considered "minority groups" who deserve special exemptions from secular laws.

I never said that I wanted to make such a case. I'm just trying to see if you have any good secular reasons for NOT making such a case.

I'm not the one arguing for incest, you are. I find the current reasons for the prohibition to be compelling. You're the one who needs to present your case if you think otherwise.

I reject your definitions, and don't believe that those who favor traditional marriage are "bigots".

Then why all the animus against same sex marriage? The new SCOTUS ruling didn't change marriages for hetero couples even one tiny iota, with the possible exception of adding more competition for rental wedding halls. Yet conservative Christians everywhere are still screaming bloody murder.

"By that idiotic logic bank robbers and NASCAR drivers should be considered "minority groups" who deserve special exemptions from secular laws."

How are bank robbers and NASCAR drivers discriminated against? I don't see any logical comparison at all.

"I'm not the one arguing for incest, you are. I find the current reasons for the prohibition to be compelling. You're the one who needs to present your case if you think otherwise."

No, actually, I'm not arguing for incest, as I don't believe such behavior is good for society and it is not in harmony with my faith convictions. What I'm actually doing is showing that you are inconsistent in your choice of when to apply the term "bigot" to others.

It is tiring to discuss with you using reason and logic. Marx used to condemn the whole nations but judging criteria was his personal preferences and opinions. You do the same because you condemn us who support traditional definition of marriage. You would be good totalitarian oppressors, comrade Stalin's apparatchiks. Now crawl back up the comrade's Stalin's rear end , your permanent home. On another blog I said I would like to marry each one of you to a pig as soon as incestual marriages are approved. I'll even buy you a wedding present.